9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged to have been manufactured. The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance is a very serious charge. The department was required to prove right from the procurement of raw material, use of raw material along with other inputs, deployment of labour, consumption of power, manufacture of final products, transportation of final products to the alleged destinations and financial flow there upon - None of the above parameters have been conclusively addressed by the Department. In fact, the appellant claimed and has demonstrated the figures from the balance sheet pertaining to the power consumption in the unit. No contra evidence has been adduced by the Department. There are force in the arguments of the appellants that the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent (AR) ORDER The appellants M/s. Ambasy Contractors Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in manufacture of various structures of steel required for industrial and residential constructions classifiable under Chapter 73 of CETA, 1985. On the basis of intelligence gathered, officers of DGCEI visited various premises and collected documents. On the basis of the investigations conducted, a show-cause notice was issued covering the period 9/2002to 3/2007. The show-cause notice was confirmed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate vide Order No. 4/2008 dated 28.8.2008. Duty of ₹ 1,83,91,846/- was confirmed along with interest and equal penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 194 was impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the work orders specifically indicated supply / fabrication and fixing of staircase, balustrade railings, etc.; the work orders specifically indicate that the project contractors allocate a space within the site for the appellants to work and they also supplied power for welding works and fabrication work at site at free of cost and accommodation of labour force shall be looked after by the appellants. The appellants have shown to the Commissioner during the course of adjudication, the work orders and photographs relating to the work performed by them. It can be easily inferred from the photographs that structures of that size and nature cannot be manufactured in a small factory and transported to the various sites. If it were to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso ignored the fact that on various work items VAT was discharged. The contracts were composite contracts including the cost of labour, material, service, etc. In fact, the appellants have started paying Service Tax from 2006 when Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service came into existence. He submits that in view of the above the impugned order requires to be set aside. 3. Learned AR for the department submits that DGCEI have conducted a systematic investigations and have established that the appellants have manufactured excisable goods and cleared them without payment of duty; the Director of the appellant, Shri Mohammed Yamin Khan has accepted the allegations of the Department; some of the officers of the projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred from the work orders themselves and the photographs submitted by the appellants. Appellant is registered with the Karnataka State Sales Tax Department as a work contractor. The nature of the work undertaken by the appellants seems to be a composite contract which by no stretch of imagination can be taxed under Central Excise Law. Central Excise duty if any, is limited to the items manufactured in the premises of the factory /job worker and later, brought to different sites for fabrication. We find that the Department has not arrived at the actual value of the items manufactured by the appellant in his or his job worker s premises. Merely, due to the fact that the appellants have not maintained / produced records for their manufacture, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would be neither feasible nor economical to transport them from their factory premises to the premises of the projects. In the case of projects undertaken at other places than Bangalore, it will be fallacious to assume that such structures are transported to far of places like New Delhi, Bellary, Baddi, etc. Similarly, no proof of deployment of labour and use of other raw material, etc., has been put forward. 5.1 The learned AR submits that the Director of the appellants has accepted manufacture in their factory. We have gone through the statement of Mr. Mohammed Yamin Khan on 31.3.2006, wherein he stated that in some cases they purchase the material and in some cases they get material from said builders; they undertake the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
